Did you say Evolution doesn't teach man evolved from ape?

[SLP]

Well its like I was saying to Aron, by colloquial definiton we arent monkeys because you can define something however way you like. So when someone says "fish", we basically know what they mean. But there are lots of kinds of fish, and so people that use the word "fish" in the colloquial sence would have a hard time trying to say what is and isnt a fish when looking at certian species. That is because colloquial meanings are arbitary.

Right... which is a point I have made a few times in this thread... Missed that didja?

When I said that technically, we are monkeys, what I meant wasnt that we are technically according to linnean classification. Aron is saying the linnean is wrong, and inadequate. Yet you dont seem to be answering his questions as to why he thinks cladists is a more accurate way to classify life, and so why we are "technically" still monkeys. You seem to be instead just be holding to the argument that linnean classification is what it is and thats the end of it. In short, when I said "technically we are monkeys", I meant "in reality", not "by linnean classification".

Did that make sence?

Ed

Not for me. Cirbryn may be making such an argument, but I am not and have made no such argument and have stated several times why I disagree with the "we are monkeys" mantra. And all I get in return are bogus links, condescension and cheerleading....

 

[Edx]

Well, Ed, I am clearly a creationist then.

But isn't it odd that someone that admits to not knowing much about the subject nonetheless deems himself able to judge what the 'really important points' are?

So I cant base an opinion based on what Ive read of your arguments?

 

[Edx]

1. So humans are archontids.2. So humans are primates.3. So humans are haplorhines.4. So humans are anthropoids. Err.. monkeys.5. So humans are catarrhines.6. So humans are apes.7. So humans are great apes. 8.So humans are hominines.9. So humans are homoines.10. So humans are Homo sapiens sapiens.
.

Now Im pretty sure that Aron would say, "exactly!". If I understand right.

 

[SLP]

Yes Cirbryn please answer this because I always felt this was one of the strongest cases Aron has made. SLP and you always skipped it, much like Ive seen Creationists do too I might add which never address this question. So, how can you say we arent monkeys if there isnt any other reason other than "linnean system says so!" which seems to be your one an only argument so far. I dont know if you care, but that doesnt persuade me.

Ed

`It is interesting to see these utterly bogus 'urban legends' swell in just a few discussion board posts.
What did I "skip"? It appears that my position has been misinterpreted, misrepresented, or miscombobulated or something, and a great deal of 'skipping' of things seems to have made the rounds.

As I explained, I do not have the luxury of excessive leisure time to produce multi-page replies to each and every post that remotely addresses something I wrote. If one wants to interpret that as some sort of 'admission' of something, so be it. It will be a stupid position to take, but there are plenty of those to go around.

I have not argued at all that humans are paraphyletic, etc. I have pointed out, repeatedly and with support, that saying 'humans are monkeys' is an arbitrary position, because one can just as correctly claim that humans ARE apes, humans ARE primates, humans ARE fish, whatever. But saying humans ARE monkeys lacks precision. 'Human' and 'monkey' and 'primate' are just names. And while names cerainly have connotations, the connotations can differ and yet not alter the underlying 'truths'.

My first post in this thread, in toto:

I suspect what you said was that evolution claims we evolved from monkeys.

Monkeys are not apes

Implying that we 'evolved from' apes. Oh, the horror! Monkeys ARE NOT apes. Correct? Yet for this terrible transgression, I was treated to a condescending quip by the local lore master:

First off, SLP, not all monkeys are apes, but all apes are monkeys, and that includes humans.

Because, after all, the Inspired Knowledge must be shared amongst the masses...



My position is that a descendant is not that from which it came, evolutionarily speaking. The ancestor of apes and humans was neither ape nor human. It certainly had more in common with apes as indicated by fossils, and we might call it an ape by virtue of various criteria, but it was not an ape as exists today. The ancestor of Hominoids and Cercopithecoids was neither. And so on. That we want to append 'common' names to extinct ancestors is fine, and if these ancestors did not possess characters that we do not, they would not be ancestral, would they? I was using descriptive language in my opening posts - monkeys are Primates but not all primates are monkeys. Is that true or not? Which provides more specificity - Primate or monkey? Monkey or ape? Ape of hominid?

The claim that humans are monkeys is arbitrary. Yes, I know what that means. It does not mean pulled out of thin air, it means based on one's own notions or preferences. Some prefer the notion that humans are monkeys over the notion that humans are sarcopterygian fish. But cladisticaly, both are true, and thus both are limited in scientific value. It is just as cladistically correct to claim that humans are apes. Just as there are no characters that all monkeys possess that humans do not, there are no characters that all apes possess that humans do not. So why not say humans are apes?
*Looking back at my earlier posts, I see that I probably employed language that was too "concrete" in describing my position. Writing things like "No, that is wrong" should have been worded something like "That is your opinion, but it is not shared by many and has limited support".

You have joined the small choir that see some major scientific position being argued, and that Cir and I can't hack it. I can't speak for Cir, but my position is not altered by the 'belief' that humans are monkeys. From my position as a primatologist, that is simply too vague a statement to be of any relevance (humans are apes is only marginally better). You interpret my indifference (and disdain for being talked down to by one that is not in such a position) as inability or avoidance.

Stop making that error.


Though I have said I am done, I will try to get to Aron's post on page 6 (in my browser anyway) sometime tomorrow. And THEN I am done (yeah right).
And if I do not address each and every utterance, you can go on accusing me of avoiding things and ignoring things if it will make you feel special.

 

[SLP]

Now Im pretty sure that Aron would say, "exactly!". If I understand right.

Probably, and thenhe would go back to claiming only that humans are monkeys.

 

[SLP]

So I cant base an opinion based on what Ive read of your arguments?

Sure, but like the saying goes, opinions are like....

Well, gotta get home to make dinner.

I know, I know, it is really just an excuse to run away and avoid the hard facts....

 

[Lilandra]

My position is that a descendant is not that from which it came, evolutionarily speaking.

I think his position is that each descendant is a modified version of its ancestor, evolutionary speaking.

That we want to append 'common' names to extinct ancestors is fine, and if these ancestors did not possess characters that we do not, they would not be ancestral, would they?

I agree

I was using descriptive language in my opening posts - monkeys are Primates but not all primates are monkeys. Is that true or not?

True

Which provides more specificity - Primate or monkey? Monkey or ape? Ape of hominid?

Specificity is useful but it is not always necessary. But, the chain of combined cladistic relationships is more specific than Homo sapien.

The claim that humans are monkeys is arbitrary. Yes, I know what that means. It does not mean pulled out of thin air, it means based on one's own notions or preferences. Some prefer the notion that humans are monkeys over the notion that humans are sarcopterygian fish. But cladisticaly, both are true, and thus both are limited in scientific value. It is just as cladistically correct to claim that humans are apes. Just as there are no characters that all monkeys possess that humans do not, there are no characters that all apes possess that humans do not.

This is what he has been arguing.

So why not say humans are apes?

No one says they aren't.

You have joined the small choir that see some major scientific position being argued, and that Cir and I can't hack it. I can't speak for Cir, but my position is not altered by the 'belief' that humans are monkeys.

So now I am a cheerleader in the choir? It is not at all possible that people disagree with you and Cibryn.

You and Cibryn agree. What does that make you? Two people that agree? Huh? Just maybe?

From my position as a primatologist, that is simply too vague a statement to be of any relevance (humans are apes is only marginally better). You interpret my indifference (and disdain for being talked down to by one that is not in such a position) as inability or avoidance.

I am sorry if I have talked down to you. For my part I really don't have disdain for anyone.

Though I have said I am done, I will try to get to Aron's post on page 6 (in my browser anyway) sometime tomorrow. And THEN I am done (yeah right).
And if I do not address each and every utterance, you can go on accusing me of avoiding things and ignoring things if it will make you feel special.

Funny thing is he was arguing with a professional creationist once and I told him, "Don't fire all your ammunition at once." He said, "You don't understand I got plenty more." He is sorta gunghoe about this stuff He overwhelms people sometimes.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I don't really have the time, interest, or inclination to re-engage in this thread in any meaningful way, but I am staggered by what sorts of things are considered 'evidence' and at the truly bizarre and unwarranted extrapolations being made here (not to mention the unbridled hubris).

I certainly don't have the time, interest, or inclination to be continually taunted by those who refuse to discuss this with either logic or civility. I honestly do not know how you could have misunderstood every single thing I've said so badly. Nor can I see any reason why you should be so offensive or act so offended. Its very discouraging and a little disorienting.

Yes, those deceptive scientists, trying to conceal some great truth that Nelson and his cheerleader know to be TRUE TRUE TRUE! (sorry - sometimes I cannot help but be sarcastic).

And that's not helping your image any. Niether are your constant insults when I never meant to insult you, and "my cheerleader" damned sure didn't deserve it.

But I find something odd here - sometimes, Nelson wants to employ pure cladistic concepts, other times, not so much. Take the above, for example. He writes that Aegyptopithecus is the stem of the Ceropithecoidea and Hominoidea,

...according to Delson.

then indicates that this was a monkey and therefore Ceropithecoids and Hominoids are monkeys, too.

Delson did say describe Parapiths as monkeys. Palomar college says both Apidium and Aegyptopithecus are monkeys, and both have been promoted as potential ancestors of Catarrhines and Platyrrhines. I've seen separate sites labeling Apidium as a Catarrhine and a Platyrrhine, and a Parapith, while others describe it as a potential ancestor to all of these groups, if not all of them at once. So according to pretty much everyone, New World monkeys, and all Old World monkeys, (including apes) descended from animals commonly and popularly recognized as monkeys even by the scientific community.

Yet in cladistics, there would be no such interdependancies. Aegyptopithecus would simply be considered an extinct sister-group (an outgroup in an analysis of Cercopithecoids and Hominoids, to those that pretend to be conversant with the appropriate terminology and concepts) to the extant Anthropoids.

Thank you. I said as much myself when I explained why Fleagle listed them that way, but you only insulted me then too. It seems you're bound to insult me no matter what I say. Now, as to why there are such "interdependancies", take that up with Delson, and the guys down at Wikipedia.

Citing Aegyptopithecus as an ancestor would be the employment of so-called evolutionary taxonomy, which is not the same as cladistics.

Granted, but I was expected to show that Delson and other relevant authorities considered that a potentially-ancestral archetype for both Hominoidea and Cercopithecoidea, and they did.

We could include Aegyptopithecus in a very large clade of Primates. Or, we could exclude it to refer to a clade consisting of only Cercopithecoids and Hominoids, or we could exclude Aegyptopithecus and the Cercopithecoids to refer to the Hominoid clade, or we could exclude the Pongids and Hylobatids to refer to the clade including gorillas, chimps, and humans, or we could exclude chimps and gorillas to refer to the clade containing only Homo and its recent ancestors/sister-groups. It all depends on what you are referring to.

You agree with me here, and yet you think you're explaining something I don't understand?

That is, it is essentially arbitrary as to which ingroups you want to include.

Once again, no it is not. I have no idea why you keep insisting on this, but you must be missing something fundamental to my point if this still your impression.

Evolutionary (phlogenetic) systematics has somewhat differing critera, for it considers ancestor/dependant relationships.
Personally, I don't have a problem with mixing the two. I do have a problem with claiming to be adhering to one while in actuality employing both.

I thought I had made very clear that most people do use a mix of the two. I prefer a complete rank-free system, without all the sub, super, infra, meta grades, all presented as if there was any equivilent level between genera, families, and so on. But I do think the names of the clades are helpful, and can be used to improve our understanding. That's why I find some value in translating Hominoidea as 'ape' and Hominidae as 'great ape' and so forth. People have an idea that these words actually mean something, and aren't just arbitrarily conceived.

...even according to Eric Delson, another of SLP's preferred authorities. So the word ‘monkey’ can be monophyletic easily!

Interesting. From the above link which is purported to contain support from Delson for the 'we are monkeys' schtick:

The origin of the anthropoid or higher primates is still under debate in terms of the source group, area, and timing. The tarsier (Tarsius) is probably the living primate sharing the most recent common ancestry with anthropoids, and the tarsierlike extinct Omomyidae is accepted as a likely ancestral stock...[So, shouldn't we be saying we are tarsiers?]

No, we can't, because the same article places Omomyids as a probable common ancestor between anthropoids and tarsiers. That placement removes tarsiers from our lineage.

In this region, three groups of fossil anthropoids have been found. The Parapithecidae (about 35–33 Ma) are monkeylike in adaptation and may be considered a third type of monkey that is not closely related to either living group. They have been suggested as being ancestral to Cercopithecoidea but are specialized in their own ways while lacking the different specializations of the cercopithecoids (or the ateloids; see table)...

Those who don't argue for paraphyly as you do, say the common ancestor of Old World monkeys and New World monkeys was indeed a monkey, and some anthropology sites even say that ancestor may have been parapithecid.

The third group of Fayum primates is the Propliopithecidae (34–33 Ma). These species are monkeylike but also in some ways almost apelike; they may well have been close to the common ancestors of cercopithecoid monkeys and hominoids (apes and humans).

Emphases mine. Again, at best, equivocal 'support'.

So you admit there are some professional scientists out there who share my position. Thank you. I wonder if you have as much vitriol prepared for them as you do for me?

 

[Aron-Ra]

A sentence from a book review is cited as evidence of the author's support for a supposed particular evolutionary hypothesis?

It certainly can't be interpreted to support your position, now can it?

How about this from the book description:

"Taking us back roughly 45 million years into the Eocene, "the dawn of recent life," Chris Beard, a world-renowned expert on the primate fossil record, offers a tantalizing new perspective on our deepest evolutionary roots. In a fast-paced narrative full of vivid stories from the field, he reconstructs our extended family tree, showing that the first anthropoids--the diverse and successful group that includes monkeys, apes, and humans--evolved millions of years earlier than was previously suspected and emerged in Asia rather than Africa. "

In this thread, both Cirbryn and I have referred to humans and apes, even though we both say that humans are apes. I have no problem with the fact that others do this too.

it seems that J. G. Fleagle (another one of SLP’s chosen authorities) agrees that monkeys, apes, and ‘ultimately’ humans all descend from what is only described here as a monkey. I believe SLP stated that this fact alone would be sufficient to prove him wrong.

You believe incorrectly,

No sir. You forget yourself, and what you said in post #73.

If Old World monkeys share a common ancestor with apes, and that common ancestor shared another common ancestor with New World monkeys, then apes have to be monkeys of some sort themselves.

If, and only if, the stem ancestor was a ‘monkey’.

Then in post #114, you cited Delson and Fleagle as the authority sources who's positions you would accept. Both of these men, and many others cited in this thread have described all of the non-hominoid anthropoids in the fossil record as "monkeys". They've also labeled them as ancestors of the Hominoids so that there is no option but that apes descended from monkeys, and therefore are monkeys still both by definition and derivation, just like I said. You set the goal. Are you going to stand by your word? Or are you going to backpeddle?

but your obsession with 'proving' me wrong is quite flattering.

You flatter yourself much too much. I have no such obsession. I'm trying to make a point, and you're trying to misunderstand it, that's all.

I don't consider myself the ultimate authority on such matters - I was blessed (cursed?) with a streak of humility -

Hardly, your caustic conduct throughout this thread was a result of your vanity being injured. You felt slighted when no offense was ever intended, and wouldn't have been perceived, except by one who was very vain.

so I rely on those whose professional histories include a track record of peer reviewed publications on the relevant subjects to provide frameworks within which I can draw conclusions.

Here is another example of your humility, since you delight in rejecting my arguments -unconsidered- because I lack the publications you boast.

Such professionals have indicated that, at best, the issue is unresolved.

Which logically means that you and I are on equal ground then, yes? Thank you for finally granting my contention a position of equal footing with yours. Or did you mean to imply that it is unresolved with all the peer-reviewed professionals on one side, and the "arm-chair experts" like Delson on the other?

So, I prefer functional, relevant taxonomies rather than ego-driven fantasies premised on preferred evolutionary histories and a haphazard use of terminology.
But that is just me.

No, its me too. That's why I object to your ego ego-driven fantasies premised on preferred evolutionary histories and a haphazard use of terminology; things like New World monkeys and Old World monkeys stemming from a common ancestor with Parapithecid monkeys, but an ancestor which somehow wasn't a monkey itself, but was a "monkey-like" lemurroid tarsier, or a 'primate', any word you can call it except what it is. That sounds pretty haphazard to me.

You have failed to provide any means of separating primates from mammals....nothing to reveal when a sarcopterygian descendant isn’t a sarcopterygian anymore...
See how that can work?

Yes, perhaps you're finally beginning to understand why we're still sarcopterygiians as well as monkeys and apes?

You may have been conditioned to think that describing humans as highly-specialized monkeys is absurd. But the fact remains that there is not one character shared by all of them that isn’t also shared by us. You certainly couldn’t produce any, nor will you ever be able to.

Wow. Such certainty...

John Harshman showed me it couldn't be done. You're showing me the same thing.

I am curious - are there any characters that are shared by all Primates that are not possessed by monkeys?

Umm, no. Since monkeys are a subset of primates, then that is not possible. Are you still under the impression that calling apes a subset of monkeys is the same thing as calling monkeys a subset of apes?

Any characters shared by all mammals that are not possessed by Primates? Surely there must be some, lest we should simply say we are Mammals or we are all Primates.

Since primates are a subset of mammals, (and therefore still mammals as well as primates) then no, that would not be possible either.

I think I'm beginning to see the problem you're having with this concept. You seem to be missing the most fundamental basic. That's why I tried to illustrate that by reminding you that all ducks are birds, but that not all birds are ducks. Do you see the correlation there?

My sticking point in this 'discussion' is, and I stand by this characterization, the arbitrary (I *know* what it means. I *knew* what it means) nature of choosing 'monkey' as the stem from which to classify all extant Anthropoids as. Are there any characters shared by chimps, humans and gorillas that 'monkeys' do not possess?

Yes, that's why they're the subset, and not the other way around.

If so, why not use that clade/stem as the one from which to draw our 'name'?

Because the word, "simian", (and similar words in many languages) refers to monkeys in a monophyletic sense, including apes, and excluding humans only for the same reason the word 'animal' also excludes humans, by comparison, even though we know that we are animals too. The word, 'ape' however does not refer to the whole collective of Anthropoidea, but only to the subset of Hominoidea. One may also choose that name for our clade because it applies just as well. But in this discussion, we're trying to determine whether 'monkeys' are part of our lineage. So to stay on-topic, we can't be distracted by other clades besides the one already on the table.

So how would YOU classify ground-driven passenger transport vehicles that do not have 4 wheels or run on internal combustion engines?

Those are just the characters, and could be applied to any number of things. But if you're trying to define a car specifically, then you can't use that as your description because those characters do not include this car.

Nor would it include electric cars, solar cars and so on.

Would you employ a more general name that includes all such creatures?

Why? The word, 'car' already exists, and we know what it means.

Or would you provide a separate classification for 4-wheeled vehicles, one for 3-wheeled vehicles, etc.?

There is little point since all these are created rather than related. For them, polyphyly is possible. For evolving life-forms, it is not.

 

[Aron-Ra]

It is then interesting to note that at one of your 'supporting' links, it refers to 'monkey' as a grade...

Monkey
An adaptive or evolutionary grade among the primates, represented by members of two of the three modern anthropoid superfamilies.

I wonder why that interests you? I made clear that I'm addressing issues like this in post # 201:

"A recent trend in biology since the 1960s, called cladism or cladistic taxonomy, requires taxa to be clades. …cladists argue that paraphyly is as harmful as polyphyly. The idea is that monophyletic groups can be defined objectively, in terms of common ancestors or the presence of synapomorphies. In contrast, paraphyletic and polyphyletic groups are both defined based on key characters, and the decision of which characters are of taxonomic import is inherently subjective. Many argue that they lead to "gradistic" thinking, where groups advance from "lowly" grades to "advanced" grades, which can in turn lead to teleology."
--Wikipedia; Cladistics

Since life is an evolving process, then you have to determine the evolutionary relationship indicated by the characters (or loss of them) in whatever organism you examine. I think I have already shown that you can’t do that with monkeys without describing humans and all other apes at the same time. If you try to be more precise, and only describe Old World monkeys specifically, you will describe humans and all other apes then too.

And thus you would not be restricted to claiming 'humans are monkeys.'

Restricted? Whoever implied any restriction?

For example, all Cercopithecines possess bilophodont molars, whereas Hominoids do not, a character that would necessitate claiming that 'Humans are apes'.

No, Cercopiths are a sister group to Hominoids, remember? Now what about the other group of Old World monkeys, the Propliopiths? Do you have a single morphological character which describes both Cercopiths and Propliopiths but which excludes apes/Hominoids?

Earlier in this thread, Aron had mentioned something about characters possessed by all members of a group (via descent) but not possessed by others as a defining characteristic of a monophyletic group. It was and has been claimed that there are characters that all monkeys, apes and humans possess and therefore, humans are monkeys because the 'ancestor' of all of them possessed these characters. But this is not evident, as indicated by a few of the quotes I provided (interestingly, from links Aron provided) containing terms like "monkey-like" and "ape-like".

This is meaningless unless you can distinguish "monkey-like" from "monkey". How can we tell one from the other? And which animals would you describe as "monkey-like"? Would they be the same ones your peers and superiors describe simply as "monkeys"?

However, by that criterion, I have met the 'challenge' to present a character that apes and humans possess ( a unique cusp pattern on the molars) that Old World monkeys do not have.

I can find characters that I possess, or that is indicative of my culture, but which is not shared by all the rest of humanity. You're working backwards. Reverse your thinking, and concentrate on similarities instead. You'll still be able to distinguish humans among apes, but you won't be able to distinguish humans from apes. Similarly, you will be able to distinguish apes among monkeys but you will not be able to distinguish apes from monkeys. Understand?

I cannot speak for Cirbryn, but I do not think you are misrepresenting anything. I do think, however, that you are giving your personal opinions on these issues more weight than they deserve.

They're not my opinons. I was forced to change my mind due to compelling argument which I could not counter, remember? I was proven wrong, so 'opinion' has nothing to do with it.

The evidence you have presented, contrary to various protestations, is at best equivocal, and some of the links you provided even presented items that are contradictory to some of your claims.

As have yours and Cirbryn's have contradicted your arguments as well. That's why this is considered so highly-charged and contraversial.

Being 'right' about everything, it seems to me, is less important than trying to promote good science.

Oh my word, we've finally found something we agree on! However, there is still one difference between us here, and that is that I have admitted my own errors -repeatedly, right here in this thread- where you tried to deny ever even making one. Which of us then is determined to be right all the time?

What taxa, extinct or extant, are referred to as is far less important, in my view, than providing the evidence that descent occurred.

Thank you! This is an important part of my motivation in this, because its difficult to say that you didn't come from monkeys if you're still a monkey now, and so are your parents and grandparents, etc.

One can say they 'came from' creatures that, were they still alive, would probably be classified as monkeys or prosimians or the like. But one can just as cladistically correctly claim that we 'came from' or 'are' apes.

I say that too. Even got voted Post-of-the-Month at Talk.Origins for it.

It is a matter of perspective and, frankly, preference.

Yet I preferred to believe otherwise, and was convinced against my preference. Preference is not involved.

Further, cladistically speaking, an ancestor is no longer alive (one of the several common criticisms of cladistics).

You don't need a living ancestor. You only need the clade. For example, last Summer, I had a moderated debate with a couple of evangelical ministries trying to influence the [mostly creationist] Texas Board of Education to "teach the weaknesses" of evolution. One of these guys, Mark Cadwallader of CreationMoments.org, -even claimed to be a government scientist. Yet he also said we weren't apes, we weren't animals, and we weren't even eukaryotes. "We aren't Eukaryotes" he said "because we never eukaryotes! Got it?" Now, do I need to produce a hypothetical eukaryote ancestor? Or can I still prove that we are eukaryotes right now even without that?

Please tell me you are not actually using the title of a book to indicate Tattersall's acceptance of the "humans are monkeys" position... He may well do so, but the title of a book is hardly 'evidence'.

Would you use this as a citation in a manuscript?

Of course, not, and neither would he. Even if he and I both wish to write an article about fossil monkeys, animals we know to be monkeys, we would still call them anthropoids, just as I would refer proboscideans, sirenians and canids (in that format) whenever I'm talking about clades rather than simple species.

This has all been enlightening, but I really have nothing to add to this discussion anymore. The tentativeness of true science cannot compete with the certainty of the overconfident.

Hear hear. I've had to change my mind before I could enter this discussion. I wonder if you'll ever change yours. Your confidence is unquestioned. Mine never was that way.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Everything that ever evolved was just a modified version of whatever its ancestors were; each incrimental branch only adds another superficial difference atop previously compiled teirs of fundamental similarities –almost as traceable as tree rings.

And so therefore humans are monkeys and nothing else, so there! Not apes, not nothin'...

Wow. No.​

Way wrong.​

I'm sure, in your position, you've had to learn to read really fast. I can appreciate that, really. But try not to read my stuff too fast, because you're missing most of it!​

1. So humans are archontids.

Yes.​

2. So humans are primates.

Yes.

3. So humans are haplorhines.

Yes.

4. So humans are anthropoids. Err.. monkeys.

Exactly!

5. So humans are catarrhines.

Perfect!

6. So humans are apes.

Absolutely!

7. So humans are great apes.

Some say the best!

8.So humans are hominines.

Yes sir.

9. So humans are homoines.

Yes.

10. So humans are Homo sapiens sapiens.

By George, I think he's got it! ​

So, somewhere in there there must be a logical reason to stop appending nomenclature at step 4, but I'm not seeing it.

I don't know what you mean? What are you talking about?

I know, I know, look at all the links in this thread blah blah blah. And I say which ones? All of the ones I have visited have provided, as I have indicated and even documented, at best, equivocal support.

For what, exactly? Did not several of your associates refer to each collective monkey group discussed here, (Parapiths, Propliopiths, Catarrhines and Platyrrhines) as monkeys?

There will never be a point when I, or my descendants can’t be identified as being descended from each of the groups I’ve already listed.

Indeed, so why the arbitrary choice of nomenclature?

Once again, there is none. Don't you remember? The very insistance that each of these groups be defined objectively by the criteria of implied monophyletic ancestry is what makes it not arbitrary anymore. I cannot pretend that Parapith monkeys, New World monkeys and Old World monkeys all emerged from a "simian" "monkey-like" "non-monkey primate". That is arbitrary! As I have already demonstrated with my conversion to this mindset in the first place, there ain't nuthin' arbitrary about it.​

Non-arbitrary classification
a. Ideally, the classification of organisms is done in a non-arbitrary manner.
b. "Taxonomists generally choose characteristics in such a way that the groupings reflect some hierarchical principle of nature. But there's a catch: taxonomists disagree about which principle to emphasize." (p. 434, Postlethwait & Hopson, 1995).
c. The two competing approaches are referred to as phenotypic and phylogenetic classification.
http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol3005.htm​

"Note that even though we talk about paraphyletic and polyphyletic groups, monophyletic groups are the only kind of group recognized as valid in the phylogenetic system. This is because they are based on non-arbitrary criteria: descent from a real common ancestor."
http://www.geol.umd.edu/~jmerck/eltsite01/projects/group2/group2.html​

Now will you please stop making that stupid accusation? Its been wrong every time you've made it, and you're never going to make it stick.

You can’t claim to know something if you can’t demonstrate your accuracy to any measurable degree.

Interesting - I recall Harshman saying something like that...

Look again. That's been an old saying of mine for a long time.

And so we are still Archontans, Primates, apes, etc., too.

Yes. In our case, because humans are so "generalized", every clade that ever applied still does, and is therefore easy to demonstrate. It gets a little trickier trying to explain why lizards are both anthracosaurs and tetrapods. But we still have all the descriptive traits of our evolutionary ancestry.

And we’re still monkeys because we’re classified as simians, in the sub-order, Anthropoidea, and as that is our ancestry, then it can't ever change.

Why pick one over the others?

What are you talking about?

...I know we are monkeys because every generic character, every attribute or flaw common to all of ‘them’ is also present in us. There is not one character all of them possess that we do not.

Same for Primates. Same for Archontans. Etc...

Yes, exactly.

We’re still monkeys because we evolved from monkeys, and yes, we have definitely established that in this thread.

I disagree. Your supporting links have even supplied contradictory information, such as describing presumed ancestors as 'apelike'

And what does that mean? And why do you think it matters? To your argument, I mean? Because from my perspective, it only makes sense that monkeys in or near our ancestry (Proconsul, Aegyptopithecus, etc) would be become progressively more "ape-like" until they were indeed apes. My point is, becoming an ape doesn't mean you're not a monkey anymore.

or indicating that a tarsiiform was most likely ancestral.

You misread that badly.

We’re still monkeys because “monkey” is the Latin translation of one of our parent taxa

So, Simon Bar Sinister on the Underdog cartoon really was a b*#tard because that is the how Bar Sinister literally translates? Come on....

You make fun of me when professional scientists address non-scientists using the word, "monkey" instead of anthropoid. You make fun of me for anything you can think of, even the fact that our very class is named 'monkey', albeit, in Latin. But I suppose I should not make fun of you for citing an underdog cartoon? Seriously?

My word man! As a field biologist with a Master’s degree, I would have to consider you a scientist. As such, you of all people shouldn’t let your perspectives be confined to little boxes defined only by authority opinion, especially when that is centuries out-dated and can't be rigged to compete against the upgrades anymore. All you’ve done so far in this thread is ignore everything I’ve shown you, and deny you ever saw it, or pretend it didn’t matter. Can you really do no better than this?!

Nice... Seems you engaged in similar denigration of Harshman, also. Yet you were arguing the opposite side of ther coin then.

Some things change, some things don't.​

Harshman, like you, was excessively condescending and rude. I am not that way. I am pleading with Cirbryn to look beyond the box, and I am doing that respectfully. Infinitely more so than you have ever been with me, or Consideringlily, Edx, or anyone else who dares take a contrary position to yours.

​

 

[Cirbryn]

I actually have provided characteristics of apes (and therefore humans) that aren’t shared by monkeys, but I don’t need to because even if there were none, humans remain classified as they are classified. If and when that changes you can truthfully tell people that humans are monkeys. Until then, all you can say is that you think they ought to be considered monkeys.

It hasn’t changed. For more than 100 years, apes have been classified as anthropoid simians, and they still are. In other words, they’re still monkeys. But you’re working backwards. I can find characteristics of any sub-group that aren’t shared by every member of the parent classification. Even by your preferred classification system, apes are a subset of monkeys, not the other way around. So to counter that, you'd need to produce some character shared by all monkeys that isn't shared by any ape. You already know you can't do it. You just don't want to admit why you can't.

Well all the sources I’ve looked at indicate that anthropoid and simian (from anthropoidea and simiiformes) mean monkeys and apes, not just monkeys. But then you were going to cite to the previous post in which you proved otherwise, so I’ll just wait for you to do that. Regarding finding characteristics shared by all monkeys; I don’t know if I can do that or not. My expectation is that each of the several monkey families would have its own defining characteristics. I’d also expect that typically, when deciding how to categorize a new species, taxonomists probably look for what known species the new one most resembles, rather than running through a list of defining characteristics for families. We can theoretically picture a new species being found that possessed all the defining characteristics of apes but which had other characteristics indicating it had evolved separately from some different ancestor. In such a case I’d expect we’d establish a separate family for it, but we might still call it an ape, in the same sense that we currently have “monkeys” in several separate families. We wouldn’t put it into Hominidae, because contrary to your claims, the Linnaean system does use phylogenetic information to avoid polyphyly (which is what putting such an unrelated species into Hominidae would be). So given all that, I don’t know what you hope to gain by proving (assuming you can) that there are no characteristics shared by all monkeys and by nothing else. I’ve also been down several of these side roads with you and I think you use them to try and divert attention away from the central question, which remains whether humans are monkeys. I don’t see this getting to that question.

However, since some other folks besides yourself have indicated interest, here’s what I’ve got: I mentioned the 5-cusped molars, chests that are flatter top to bottom, and lack of tails in apes. Monkeys have 4-cusped molars, chests that are flatter side to side, and almost all have tails. (That’s all from An Encyclopedia of Mammals, by David MacDonald). From this article about a newly discovered ancient ape, we also get that monkeys have shoulder blades along the sides rather than the back, and lumbar vertebrae that are more flexible than those of apes (due to the more quadrapedal posture). Monkey wrists apparently articulate against both forearm bones rather than one, allowing less wrist flexibility for climbing, but more wrist stability for quadrapedal walking. (This is one where I have to wonder whether they might be referring only to old-world monkeys, since you’d think something like a spider monkey would be more adapted to climbing). Apparently gibbons (“lesser” apes) actually have a ball and socket joint for their wrists. Monkeys also tend to have longer snouts than apes, but not so long as lemurs.

But I’ll bet you can’t cite any taxonomic work since 1990 that relies on character-based classifications over phylogenetics. No –wait. I take that back. I have seen some traditional taxonomists trying to argue that genetics could be wrong if it conflicted with their personal interpretation of morphology. But this is unrealistic, as one of the sites I cited earlier said also.

"The idea is that monophyletic groups can be defined objectively, in terms of common ancestors or the presence of synapomorphies. In contrast, paraphyletic and polyphyletic groups are both defined based on key characters, and the decision of which characters are of taxonomic import is inherently subjective. ...Going further, some cladists argue that ranks for groups above species are too subjective to present any meaningful information, and so argue that they should be abandoned. Thus they have moved away from Linnaean taxonomy towards a simple hierarchy of clades."
--Wikipedia; Cladistics

Alright, first off phylogenetics doesn’t just mean genetic comparisons. It means the study of evolutionary relatedness. Many phylogenetic analyses are carried out using morphological features. That’s the only way to do so for species known only by their fossils (except for the unusual situations in which the DNA gets preserved). That’s how your “dawn monkey” was determined to be a potential monkey ancestor. That’s how the author of the paper I cited above about the Miocene ape determined he’d found a Miocene ape. Morphological features can also provide important information about existing species as well. The Fish and Wildlife Service just won a suit brought to the 9th Circuit regarding the listing of the Buena Vista Lake Shrew. The plaintiffs had sued us for listing it as endangered without re-opening the comment period after the proposal to list, when three new studies became available. Two of the studies constituted genetic and morphological studies respectively, conducted by the same person (Jesus Maldonado) on shrew populations across California. Although the two studies both said the Buena Vista Lake shrew was distinct (which is why we won), they disagreed regarding the breakdown of some of the other (unlisted) subspecies. The genetic study found 3 geographically separate clades, and didn’t find support for the traditional subspecies classifications in the northern clade. The morphological study (based on skull measurements) did find support for the traditional classifications (which had originally been established according to pelt color, body size and habitat). Presumably, the skull measurements were subject to fairly strong selection, because skull size and shape influence what you can eat, which is very important to a shrew since it has to maintain such a high metabolic rate. So the genetic studies, which compared DNA that hadn’t undergone strong selection, were missing out on this important differentiating characteristic.

Secondly, there is only one situation under which the Linnaean system doesn’t reflect all the available phylogenetic information, and that regards the break between a paraphyletic group and whatever evolved from it. (So in the picture here, the break between the archosaurs and the birds (aves)). Even then, the Linnaean system doesn’t somehow stand in opposition to phylogenetics, it just fails to reflect that particular bit of information. You have to remember independently that birds evolved from archosaurs. That is an admitted drawback, but as they say, you can’t have everything. Avoid all paraphyletic groupings, as the PhyloCode proposes to do, and you lose information about species and subspecies. As Loudmouth has pointed out, species are real natural entities defined by gene flow. Evolutionary changes can spread throughout a multicelled species, but only very rarely across them. They’re also important from my perspective because my job is protecting species and subspecies under the Endangered Species Act. The PhyloCode would make species just another taxon – the least inclusive, according to page 6 of the above cite. If they handled speciation by keeping the old species name in the name string (such as your example of Canis lupus familiaris dachshund) then we lose the information that the old species (lupus) is an independent evolutionary unit that doesn’t exchange genes with other such units. If “species” is to be the least inclusive phylocode taxon, then subspecies will be done away with entirely. Yet subspecies status conveys important information regarding the potential for unique characteristics not shared by the rest of the species. So you lose information both with the Linnaean system and with PhyloCode, but to my mind you lose the more important information with Phylocode.

 

[Cirbryn]

Under the Linnaean system, humans are classified in the ape family (Hominidae), but are not in any monkey family (such as Cercopithecidae). That’s what makes humans apes but not monkeys. That’s all there is to it.

Wrong. Fortunately my perspective is not so limited. The Linnaean system –which is popularly taught in college as the current standard even though it is known to be wrong- still says all "apes" as Pongids, remember? My own class in anthropology (barely two years ago) included a test question requiring us to describe the differences between apes and hominids! Even though they're still teaching that nonsense as the standard, all that was changed –for purely phylogenetic reasons, a decade before, as you already admitted.

But either way, apes are still part of Simia, the monkey clade. As I have shown you before again and again, Cercopithecoidea is not synonymous with “monkey” nor even “Old World monkeys”, regardless of what I know you've read elsewhere. Because there are monkeys, and even Old World monkeys that are recognized as such -even by primatologists- but which aren’t in that group.

It’s not wrong. Humans are apes but not monkeys because that’s how they’re classified under the Linnaean system. Previously other great apes were classified in their own family (Pongidae), but now they’re not. Before that the great apes and lesser apes (gibbons) were all classified in their own family (Simiidae), but now they’re not. All that means is that the Linnaean system isn’t static as you claimed, but is instead responsive to new phylogenetic information (that being in this case the various genetic studies showing how closely we are related to chimpanzees). The great apes are now classed with humans in Hominidae, and the gibbons are classed in their own family of Hylobatidae. Nothing non-Linnaean about that. And if your anthro class is behind the times, that’s its problem.

And I don’t know what you mean by apes still being in Simia, the monkey clade. According to Wikipedia Simia was a Linnaean taxon set up by Linnaeus hundreds of years ago. It wasn’t a clade because it wasn’t monophyletic. It included monkeys and (presumably) apes other than humans and chimps. We currently have infraorder Simiiformes, which includes both monkeys and apes. Also, I never claimed Cercopithecoidea was synonymous with monkeys, and in fact I specifically noted numerous times that there are monkeys in other families. As you’ll see if you re-read my quote above, I used Cercopithecidae (not Cercopithecoidea) as an example of a monkey family. Secondly, I’m getting tired of your continually claiming to have shown me something again and again. If you want to refer me to a particular post then you are welcome to do so. Otherwise, save the condescending histrionics and use the extra time to actually read what I wrote.

Every single instance of a new species evolving from an old one adds another paraphyletic taxon.

No sir, not in any case, not even in the Linnaean system. When a new species emerges, then it is a just a new kind of whatever its ancestors were. This is true in every single instance.

The paraphyletic taxon is the old species, not the new one. A paraphyletic taxon is one that doesn’t include all descendants. The new species is a descendant, but it gets its own species designation in the genus as if it were a sister species to the original. It is not considered to be part of the parent species any more.

And it’s not like the Linnaean system is opposed to phylogenetic information. Linnaean taxa are configured to avoid polyphyly just as any purely cladistic system would be.

Then explain why you insist that all the “Old World monkeys” must be Cercopiths? And how they relate to New World monkeys? You yourself tried to argue for paraphyly earlier in this thread! How then do you account for Parapith monkeys, and Propliopiths?

I didn’t argue that all old-world monkeys must be Cercopiths. I don’t know how Cercopiths relate to new-world monkeys. I mentioned earlier in the thread that old and new world monkeys might have evolved separately to be monkeylike, which would make the term “monkey” polyphyletic (not paraphyletic – the difference is that paraphyletic groups include a single common ancestor but don’t include all the descendants, whereas polyphyletic groups don’t include the common ancestor). Since “monkey” isn’t a Linnaean term, but is instead associated with several Linnaean families including the cercopiths in the old world and the Cebidae in the new, I don’t see what the problem is. I didn’t say “monkey” couldn’t be polyphyletic, I said Linnaean taxa aren’t polyphyletic (or at least that taxonomists try to avoid such polyphyly). The parapiths and propliopiths are extinct families of old-world monkeys. Based on morphological comparisons, the propliopiths may have given rise to both the Cercopiths and the apes. If so, then the propliopiths would be paraphyletic.

They differ in that Linnaean taxa may be paraphyletic, while a clade must be monophyletic.

While it is true that phylogenetic clades must be monophyletic, it doesn’t make any sense that it would ever be otherwise, because, (as I said) the suite of characters describing any taxon still must be read as it relates to the ancestral descent. Otherwise, these are arbitrary classifications with little or no other meaning.

It doesn’t make any sense that it would be otherwise about phylogentic clades, or about Linnaean taxa? If you meant the latter, are you disagreeing with me that such taxa can be paraphyletic, or are you just complaining about how you don’t like paraphyletic groups? If the latter, how would that be relevant to whether humans are monkeys?

And yes, you did finally clarify in this thread that humans aren’t classified as monkeys by the generally accepted system. You then contracticted that clarification in the above quotes where you claim it’s true we are monkeys according to the accepted system, and that it isn’t true that you’re using a non-standard system. In post 27 you make the nonsensical claim we are monkeys regardless of the system. You are all over the board.

I’m making one statement repeatedly. You don’t understand it obviously, as indicated by the fact that you still refer to monkeys are Cercopiths, and because you somehow believe that “every single instance” of evolution is paraphyletic, -which just isn’t true even according to your antiquated "standard". I’m not contradicting myself. But you are, and I think its just that you’re perspective is still confined to little taxonomic boxes determined by unquestioned authority opinion, rather than the iconoclast vision of growing and branching limbs. That's why you’re having difficulty understanding me.

Aron, I don’t think you’re taking enough time to read what I’ve written, or to write considered responses. If you were making one statement repeatedly, then you wouldn’t have said both that humans are and are not monkeys under the Linnaean system. I provided the quotes, they were in the post to which you were responding above. I don’t refer to monkeys as Cercopiths, I refer to Cercopiths as monkeys. And I never said every single instance of evolution is paraphyletic. I said every instance of speciation produces a paraphyletic taxon. Given your mangling of what I’ve actually written, I think I’m actually doing a pretty good job understanding you. I’d appreciate it if you tried to give me similar consideration.

 

[Aron-Ra]

My first post in this thread, in toto:

I suspect what you said was that evolution claims we evolved from monkeys.

Monkeys are not apes

Implying that we 'evolved from' apes. Oh, the horror! Monkeys ARE NOT apes. Correct? Yet for this terrible transgression, I was treated to a condescending quip by the local lore master:

First off, SLP, not all monkeys are apes, but all apes are monkeys, and that includes humans.

This wasn't meant to be condescending. I can't imagine how anyone cursed with any humility could think it was.

My position is that a descendant is not that from which it came, evolutionarily speaking.

But it is a modified version of that, just as I've been saying all along.

The ancestor of apes and humans was neither ape nor human. It certainly had more in common with apes as indicated by fossils, and we might call it an ape by virtue of various criteria, but it was not an ape as exists today.

It was an ape. We are apes today. Gorillas are apes today. Dryopithecus was an ape yesterday. And so are/were gibbons.

The ancestor of Hominoids and Cercopithecoids was neither. And so on.

That's right. It was a Propliopithecid, another kind of 'Old World monkey'.

That we want to append 'common' names to extinct ancestors is fine, and if these ancestors did not possess characters that we do not, they would not be ancestral, would they?

Of course.

I was using descriptive language in my opening posts - monkeys are Primates but not all primates are monkeys. Is that true or not?

Yes. There are also tarsiers, lemurs and lorises.

Which provides more specificity - Primate or monkey?

Monkey, because it refers only to anthropoids.

Monkey or ape?

Ape, because it distinguishes Hominoidea from all the clades of other monkeys in the four groups discussed in this thread.

Ape of hominid?

Hominid, because it refers only the 'great' apes.

The claim that humans are monkeys is arbitrary. Yes, I know what that means.

Evidently not.

It does not mean pulled out of thin air, it means based on one's own notions or preferences.

Yet I preferred to adhere to the notion of grades, just as Cirbryn still does. I was forced to discard that despite my preference. So it was not arbitrary.

Some prefer the notion that humans are monkeys over the notion that humans are sarcopterygian fish. But cladisticaly, both are true, and thus both are limited in scientific value.

Wait, if something is true, then it is limited in scientific value?! Are you sure you want to say that?

Besides, as a cladist, its awfully funny when creationists ask for transitional species in a system that can't have "gaps". Asking for a half-ape, half-human is exactly the same thing as asking for a half-mammal, half-human.

It is just as cladistically correct to claim that humans are apes. Just as there are no characters that all monkeys possess that humans do not, there are no characters that all apes possess that humans do not. So why not say humans are apes?

I do, and I have since I was a little boy, decades before any taxonomists begun to share that opinion, I knew we were apes, and I've said so all my life. Now, at last, the dominant scientific position is finally comfortable saying the same. After decades of saying "humand didn't evolve from apes" they're finally admitting that, well, yes we did. We had to have, because we're still apes now! Admitting we're monkeys is just the next, (and last) step to accepting the whole phylogenetic scheme.

 

[Aron-Ra]

You haven’t shown that Catarrhini means “old world monkeys”. You’ve claimed that, and have not been able to back it up. If you disagree then cite the post where you made your case without it having been shot down.

Post #258. But its also accurate to say that that case hasn't been "shot down" yet. Choose carefully which part of the points I made that you still think you can contest. (1) Humans are a subset of apes, (2) which are a subset of Catarrhini, (3) which is described as a collective of Old World monkeys, and not just in the universities of North Carolina. In post # 284 even SLP finally admitted as much.

"Some prefer the notion that humans are monkeys over the notion that humans are sarcopterygian fish. But cladisticaly, both are true, and thus both are limited in scientific value. It is just as cladistically correct to claim that humans are apes. Just as there are no characters that all monkeys possess that humans do not, there are no characters that all apes possess that humans do not."

Now you are defending your misrepresentation of how humans and monkeys are classified by misrepresenting the classification system itself.

I misrepresent nothing.

The Linnaean system isn’t simply character based, and hasn’t been for a long time. It incorporates cladistic data to avoid polyphyly and often does so to avoid paraphyly as well.

I already told you, and my cited sources told you, -that "most" taxonomists are attempting to integrate the two systems. But the problem is the Linnaean ranks aren't of equal stature, and have consequently become "both cumbersome and ontologically vacuous."

It differs from purely cladistic systems such as the PhyloCode you cited to earlier (which as you noted is still under development) in that it recognizes some paraphyletic groups.

And that is the other problem; one you yourself continue to demonstrate.

Your apparent assumption that if it’s based on phylogenetic data it can’t be Linnaean is ridiculous.

No, its accurate. Linnaean taxonomy is based on morphology. Plylogenetics is based on, well, phylogenetics. Linnaeus didn't have that, and (as I've already shown you) there are still some scientists out there trying to argue against it -to keep Linnaean taxonomy purely morphological.

Please support or withdraw your implied contention that moving the other great apes into the Linnaean family Hominidae constituted some kind of overturn of the Linnaean system.

I could do that by quoting your own admission that the only data you ever saw which even implied such a change should be made was cladist. You already know you won't be able to drum up any strictly-Linnaean citations making that plea. Now remember what I already told you, in taxonomy today, there is either Linnaean taxonomy enhanced by phylogenetics, or there is a purely cladist construct. But no one is actively working within a pure Linnaean construct anymore.

While you’re at it, where have you shown (as opposed to simply asserted) that anthropoidea means “monkeys”?

In virtually every post, but especially in post #s 90, 202, & 274.

You’re determined to make me repeat myself indefinitely.

No, believe me, that’s the last thing I want to make you do. But just because you assert a thing doesn’t make it true. Most of your previous posts have been off-topic flack.

No sir. It was all relevant, but you ignored it all because it was obviously beyond your scope. It seems your mind is still trapped in its little box.

If there’s something back there I missed regarding support for the idea that humans are monkeys under the standard taxonomic system (and I’ve asked you above for a cite) I’ll certainly take another look.

Then go back and read the post you thought you were answering again. I gave you the sites you were asking for already.

But what I expect I’ll see is you making a claim along those lines and me or SLP countering it.

Given your track record so far, why would you expect to see that?

Why haven’t you realized this yet? There is not just one "accepted standard"; there are two. The traditional Linnaean character-based system which is static, and the evolving phylogenetic system which is challenging that.

I haven’t “realized” it because it isn’t true.

Yes it is.

The Linnaean system is still used in some branches of biology. But in other branches, and particularly in vertebrate paleontology, it is rapidly being replaced by a system referred to as cladistics or phylogenetic systematics.”
--University of Wisconsin Department of Geology & Geophysics

The closest thing we have to a purely phylogenetic system is the PhyloCode, of which Wikipedia says: “The number of supporters for official adoption of phylocode is still small, and it is uncertain, as of 2005, whether the system will be adopted.” Also, as I discussed above the Linnaean system isn’t static.

Every new species requires a new box beside that of his parents. No, it is static, and I no longer expect you to ever understand why.

Additionally, if you are going to agree with me that the Linnaean system is the accepted standard for taxonomic classification, you shouldn’t be coming back weeks later saying “Oh, I meant it was one of two standards. I don’t have time or patience for such games.”

You're the one playing games, sir. I explained all this to you way back when I answered your question the first time. Its not my fault if you ignored it then, and still never understood any of the many clarifications I provided thereafter. I gave you all the references you need for this back in post #201, and several times since, and you keep ignoring them, -and the fact that Wikipedia's authors have a strong preference for the Linnaean system.

"Few dispute that the Linnaean system has worked admirably for 250 years. The question is whether it can continue its successful run much longer. In his 1758 edition of Systema Naturae, Linnaeus listed 4400 species known to science. As the number of known species grew over the years, it became harder to accommodate them with the standard seven categorical ranks, and taxonomists had to invent new ones, like subfamily, superorder, and tribe. Today there are 1.5 million described species, perhaps millions more undescribed , and still more extinct taxa being discovered by paleontologists. The limited number of ranks of the Linnaean system, Yale University’s Michael Donoghue says, “is just not going to cut it....We’re not able to do justice to our current knowledge of phylogeny with the present system.” In addition, the molecular revolution of recent years has given systematists enormous new datasets of genetic information. To morphological characters from bones, skin, organs, and limbs, today’s systematists have added the As,Ts,Gs, and Cs of DNA sequence data. Sophisticated computer programs that crunch the molecular data have produced a flood of phylogenies, many showing novel relationships and prompting reevaluation of traditional classifications."
--Ecology and Evolutionary Biology; University of Connecticut (emphasis mine)

So yes, it is true. Its time to realize there are two systems in use right now, and that one of them, (yours) can't cut it any more.

Let me see if I’ve got this straight: you’re claiming that humans are monkeys under the Linnaean system because Linnaeaus classified humans as apes in the 1700s? Or because, according to you but not SLP, we are in a monkey clade (which is a non-Linnaean category).?

No. Because Linnaeus set aside a class for monkeys, and even named it that, (in Latin). But his peers insisted that apes be included in that group so that humans could still be seen as unique in the animal world.

Or because of the meaning of several words based in other languages that aren’t “monkey” or “human”?

There is a contextual understanding there that I thought would be obvious. But you're not getting it, and I'm beginning to doubt that you ever will.

Are you actually trying to form a coherent argument here? If “anthropoid” (as used in the Linnaean system) actually meant “monkey” rather than “monkeys and apes”, that might help your case, but I’ve already asked you to back that up.

And I did with my references to those two universities in North Carolina.

The rest is just silliness.

I'm afraid you're right there. You keep asking me to show you things right after I posted them. But since you already admitted that you answer these posts without even reading them all the way through, I shouldn't be surprised. It is therefore silly to continue discussing this with you at all.

And while you’re at it, would you kindly find another term for people without much biological background, besides “common laity”? It is at once both insulting and comical that you apparently think of yourself as some kind of special priest.

I am a kind of special priest. I have an ordination from the Universal Life Church. But that doesn't have any bearing here, and I certainly don't think of myself as a priest. I am exactly as much a priest as Kent Hovind is a doctor. 'Common laity' is the appropriate term, and I will continue to use that regardless how you've chosen misunderstand it.

 

[Lilandra]

Cibryn, I thought this was a well thought out post for the most part.

Well all the sources I’ve looked at indicate that anthropoid and simian (from anthropoidea and simiiformes) mean monkeys and apes, not just monkeys.

Maybe simiiformes include monkeys and apes because monkeys and apes both possess simian(monkey) characteristics. Because their common ancestor was a friggin monkey. (joking there)

However, since some other folks besides yourself have indicated interest, here’s what I’ve got: I mentioned the 5-cusped molars, chests that are flatter top to bottom, and lack of tails in apes. Monkeys have 4-cusped molars, chests that are flatter side to side, and almost all have tails. (That’s all from An Encyclopedia of Mammals, by David MacDonald). From this article about a newly discovered ancient ape, we also get that monkeys have shoulder blades along the sides rather than the back, and lumbar vertebrae that are more flexible than those of apes (due to the more quadrapedal posture). Monkey wrists apparently articulate against both forearm bones rather than one, allowing less wrist flexibility for climbing, but more wrist stability for quadrapedal walking. (This is one where I have to wonder whether they might be referring only to old-world monkeys, since you’d think something like a spider monkey would be more adapted to climbing). Apparently gibbons (“lesser” apes) actually have a ball and socket joint for their wrists. Monkeys also tend to have longer snouts than apes, but not so long as lemurs.

This is all great stuff. Did you notice how they identified the ancient ape? Aron has been asking you how they would identify a newly discovered species. He said it would be with shared characteristics within a family of animals. That is just what they did.

Alright, first off phylogenetics doesn’t just mean genetic comparisons. It means the study of evolutionary relatedness. Many phylogenetic analyses are carried out using morphological features. That’s the only way to do so for species known only by their fossils (except for the unusual situations in which the DNA gets preserved). That’s how your “dawn monkey” was determined to be a potential monkey ancestor. That’s how the author of the paper I cited above about the Miocene ape determined he’d found a Miocene ape. Morphological features can also provide important information about existing species as well.

Morphological analysis works for the most part because a family of species have identifying characteristics. You have already cited the list that distinguishes monkeys from other primates.

The Fish and Wildlife Service just won a suit brought to the 9th Circuit regarding the listing of the Buena Vista Lake Shrew. The plaintiffs had sued us for listing it as endangered without re-opening the comment period after the proposal to list, when three new studies became available. Two of the studies constituted genetic and morphological studies respectively, conducted by the same person (Jesus Maldonado) on shrew populations across California. Although the two studies both said the Buena Vista Lake shrew was distinct (which is why we won), they disagreed regarding the breakdown of some of the other (unlisted) subspecies. The genetic study found 3 geographically separate clades, and didn’t find support for the traditional subspecies classifications in the northern clade. The morphological study (based on skull measurements) did find support for the traditional classifications (which had originally been established according to pelt color, body size and habitat). Presumably, the skull measurements were subject to fairly strong selection, because skull size and shape influence what you can eat, which is very important to a shrew since it has to maintain such a high metabolic rate. So the genetic studies, which compared DNA that hadn’t undergone strong selection, were missing out on this important differentiating characteristic.

This was interesting but it highlights the deficiencies of sole morphological analysis. The one big monkey wrench being that environment can select similar morphological characteristics in different species.

Secondly, there is only one situation under which the Linnaean system doesn’t reflect all the available phylogenetic information, and that regards the break between a paraphyletic group and whatever evolved from it. (So in the picture here, the break between the archosaurs and the birds (aves)). Even then, the Linnaean system doesn’t somehow stand in opposition to phylogenetics, it just fails to reflect that particular bit of information. You have to remember independently that birds evolved from archosaurs. That is an admitted drawback, but as they say, you can’t have everything. Avoid all paraphyletic groupings, as the PhyloCode proposes to do, and you lose information about species and subspecies. As Loudmouth has pointed out, species are real natural entities defined by gene flow.

I think that the class level distinctions seem sorta static like Creationist kinds. It gives Reptilia the same rank as Aves and Amphibians.

I don't think they are really a sister group. Other animals are modified reptiles.

Evolutionary changes can spread throughout a multicelled species, but only very rarely across them. They’re also important from my perspective because my job is protecting species and subspecies under the Endangered Species Act. The PhyloCode would make species just another taxon – the least inclusive, according to page 6 of the above cite. If they handled speciation by keeping the old species name in the name string (such as your example of Canis lupus familiaris dachshund) then we lose the information that the old species (lupus) is an independent evolutionary unit that doesn’t exchange genes with other such units. If “species” is to be the least inclusive phylocode taxon, then subspecies will be done away with entirely. Yet subspecies status conveys important information regarding the potential for unique characteristics not shared by the rest of the species. So you lose information both with the Linnaean system and with PhyloCode, but to my mind you lose the more important information with Phylocode.

But the evolutionary relationships are important biological information.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Even by your preferred classification system, apes are a subset of monkeys, not the other way around. So to counter that, you'd need to produce some character shared by all monkeys that isn't shared by any ape. You already know you can't do it. You just don't want to admit why you can't.

Well all the sources I’ve looked at indicate that anthropoid and simian (from anthropoidea and simiiformes) mean monkeys and apes, not just monkeys.

Yes, and you yourself listed groups of humans and apes at the same time as claiming humand are apes. Even I do that! You're dealing with the same thing here. Why aren't you getting this?

Even according to your antiquated system, apes still evolved from archetypes like Aegyptopithecus and Proconsul, animals literally described as, and declared to be, -monkeys. Propliopithecoidea, Cercopithecoidea and Hominoidea are all three subsets of Old World monkeys. And to counter that, you'd need to produce some character shared by all monkeys that isn't shared by any ape. You already know you can't do it. And I think you know why you can't do it. But you can't admit it, and you're running out of excuses.

But then you were going to cite to the previous post in which you proved otherwise, so I’ll just wait for you to do that.

Maybe if you would read the posts all the way through the first time, and either aknowledge that or concoct some actual rebuttal for once, then I wouldn't have to explain the exact same things to you again and again and again.

Regarding finding characteristics shared by all monkeys; I don’t know if I can do that or not.

SLP finally admitted he couldn't do it. So what do you think your chances are?

My expectation is that each of the several monkey families would have its own defining characteristics.

Be careful with that though. Propliopithecoidea and Parapithecoidea have proven difficult to categorize in either the Linnaean or cladistic framework. Those two may not fit in the boxes we've designed for them.

I’d also expect that typically, when deciding how to categorize a new species, taxonomists probably look for what known species the new one most resembles, rather than running through a list of defining characteristics for families.

If we do that, then thylacines end up classified as Tasmanian wolves.

We can theoretically picture a new species being found that possessed all the defining characteristics of apes but which had other characteristics indicating it had evolved separately from some different ancestor.

Are you thinking of Oreopithecus bombolii?

In such a case I’d expect we’d establish a separate family for it, but we might still call it an ape, in the same sense that we currently have “monkeys” in several separate families. We wouldn’t put it into Hominidae, because contrary to your claims, the Linnaean system does use phylogenetic information to avoid polyphyly (which is what putting such an unrelated species into Hominidae would be).

Taxonomists commonly use Linnaean ranks, based on morphological characters, in concert with phylogenetics. The Linnaean system itself, however, does not employ phylogenetics and never did.

And if you can't call it a hominid, why would you call it an ape? What did you think the word, 'ape' meant?

So given all that, I don’t know what you hope to gain by proving (assuming you can) that there are no characteristics shared by all monkeys and by nothing else.

"Strike that, reverse it." --Willie Wonka

I’ve also been down several of these side roads with you and I think you use them to try and divert attention away from the central question, which remains whether humans are monkeys. I don’t see this getting to that question.

That's because these are not side-roads. Damn you are thick! You're thick, Thicky Thickman from Thicktown, Thickamia. Boy you know to miss a point!

However, since some other folks besides yourself have indicated interest, here’s what I’ve got: I mentioned the 5-cusped molars, chests that are flatter top to bottom, and lack of tails in apes. Monkeys have 4-cusped molars, chests that are flatter side to side, and almost all have tails. (That’s all from An Encyclopedia of Mammals, by David MacDonald). From this article about a newly discovered ancient ape, we also get that monkeys have shoulder blades along the sides rather than the back, and lumbar vertebrae that are more flexible than those of apes (due to the more quadrapedal posture). Monkey wrists apparently articulate against both forearm bones rather than one, allowing less wrist flexibility for climbing, but more wrist stability for quadrapedal walking. (This is one where I have to wonder whether they might be referring only to old-world monkeys, since you’d think something like a spider monkey would be more adapted to climbing). Apparently gibbons (“lesser” apes) actually have a ball and socket joint for their wrists. Monkeys also tend to have longer snouts than apes, but not so long as lemurs.

The longer snout isn't consistent. There are some New Wold monkeys who are quite flat-faced. At least one ape, Proconsul, had the chest you describe for monkeys, which requires shoulder blades to match of course. Also Aegyptopithecus, (and Victoriapithecus too I think) had five cusped molars while most callithricines have only three. Several Propliopithecids may have been tailless and a couple maqaques are still tailless today. You can't limit your character analysis only to living monkeys. The rules change dramatically when you add the fossil forms. And about the lumbar region, I should add that one of the traits of apes is a greater tendancy toward bipedalism, a trait that is repeated in each subsequent clade.

Alright, first off phylogenetics doesn’t just mean genetic comparisons. It means the study of evolutionary relatedness. Many phylogenetic analyses are carried out using morphological features. That’s the only way to do so for species known only by their fossils (except for the unusual situations in which the DNA gets preserved). That’s how your “dawn monkey” was determined to be a potential monkey ancestor. That’s how the author of the paper I cited above about the Miocene ape determined he’d found a Miocene ape. Morphological features can also provide important information about existing species as well.

You're not telling me anything I don't already know. You're telling me something I've already told you several times in this thread. But since you don't bother to read the whole post before you answer it, I'll repeat again. Tell me if this sounds familiar? Modern phylogenetics takes the total tally of all physical characteristics, (morphological, physiological, developmental and genetic) but the characters don't determine the classification the way they would in the Linnaean system. Instead, they're used to establish phylogeny and that determines the clade!

The Fish and Wildlife Service just won a suit brought to the 9th Circuit regarding the listing of the Buena Vista Lake Shrew. The plaintiffs had sued us for listing it as endangered without re-opening the comment period after the proposal to list, when three new studies became available. Two of the studies constituted genetic and morphological studies respectively, conducted by the same person (Jesus Maldonado) on shrew populations across California. Although the two studies both said the Buena Vista Lake shrew was distinct (which is why we won), they disagreed regarding the breakdown of some of the other (unlisted) subspecies. The genetic study found 3 geographically separate clades, and didn’t find support for the traditional subspecies classifications in the northern clade. The morphological study (based on skull measurements) did find support for the traditional classifications (which had originally been established according to pelt color, body size and habitat). Presumably, the skull measurements were subject to fairly strong selection, because skull size and shape influence what you can eat, which is very important to a shrew since it has to maintain such a high metabolic rate. So the genetic studies, which compared DNA that hadn’t undergone strong selection, were missing out on this important differentiating characteristic.

So you yourself are using clades rather than Linnaean ranks?

Secondly, there is only one situation under which the Linnaean system doesn’t reflect all the available phylogenetic information, and that regards the break between a paraphyletic group and whatever evolved from it. (So in the picture here, the break between the archosaurs and the birds (aves)).

There wasn't any break between them. Birds are archosaurs now.

Even then, the Linnaean system doesn’t somehow stand in opposition to phylogenetics, it just fails to reflect that particular bit of information. You have to remember independently that birds evolved from archosaurs. That is an admitted drawback, but as they say, you can’t have everything. Avoid all paraphyletic groupings, as the PhyloCode proposes to do, and you lose information about species and subspecies.

No you wouldn't. But I'd like to know why you think so.

As Loudmouth has pointed out, species are real natural entities defined by gene flow. Evolutionary changes can spread throughout a multicelled species, but only very rarely across them. They’re also important from my perspective because my job is protecting species and subspecies under the Endangered Species Act. The PhyloCode would make species just another taxon – the least inclusive, according to page 6 of the above cite. If they handled speciation by keeping the old species name in the name string (such as your example of Canis lupus familiaris dachshund) then we lose the information that the old species (lupus) is an independent evolutionary unit that doesn’t exchange genes with other such units. If “species” is to be the least inclusive phylocode taxon, then subspecies will be done away with entirely. Yet subspecies status conveys important information regarding the potential for unique characteristics not shared by the rest of the species. So you lose information both with the Linnaean system and with PhyloCode, but to my mind you lose the more important information with Phylocode.

OK, so you have a vested interest in denying cladistic classification -even though you yourself use it to the exclusion of Linnaean ranks. But I have no idea why you would think subspecies wouldn't still retain the meaning it does, and if classiciation is based on phylogeny rather than characters, then you certainly wouldn't lose any information at all. You would only gain it -as you just demonstrated yourself. How much information would you lose if you "simply fail to reflect" it?

 

[dad]

Even according to your antiquated system, apes still evolved from archetypes like Aegyptopithecus and Proconsul, animals literally described as, and declared to be, -monkeys. Propliopithecoidea, Cercopithecoidea and Hominoidea are all three subsets of Old World monkeys. And to counter that, you'd need to produce some character shared by all monkeys that isn't shared by any ape.

I see no problem with monkeys evolving, even into apes. But I do think, that whatever link you think you can make from there to man is due to cross breeding of species long ago, when that could happen. Or something of that nature. Rest assured, man did not evolve from any ape or monkey of any kind.

 

[Lilandra]

I see no problem with monkeys evolving, even into apes. But I do think, that whatever link you think you can make from there to man is due to cross breeding of species long ago, when that could happen. Or something of that nature. Rest assured, man did not evolve from any ape or monkey of any kind.

Oh no! we've awakened Dad. Go back to sleep Dad.

 

[dad]

Oh no! we've awakened Dad. Go back to sleep Dad.

With the pretty pictures of girls here, that might be easier said than done.
Hec, I do not know why so much ado about nothing is going on here.
Evolution is a wonderful creation trait that happened at breakneck speed in the long ago. Any confusion on similarities might be due largely to the old lack of cross species breeding barriers. What more is needed here to settle the debate? Am I missing something somewhere?